Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Smt. Munni Devi & Anr.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 05.08.2026
Pronounced on : 03.11.2026
Uploaded on : 03.11.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010079732023

+ W.P.(C) 2928/2023, CM APPLs. 11427/2023, 49238/2024
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Namrata Mukim, SC for
MCD with Ms. Niharika Singh,
Advocate, with Mr. Ram
Kishan Bharti, Assistant
Director (Education)

versus

SMT. MUNNI DEVI & ANR ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Triloki Pandit, Advocate
for Respondent No. 1.
Ms. Soumitra Chatterjee,
Mr.Vipul Gupta, and Mr.
Manish, Advocates for
Respondent No.2

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, MCD) under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, assailing the award dated 11.10.2022
passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-IV, Rouse
Avenue District Courts, New Delhi, in LIR No. 100/2020.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:18:25
W.P.(C) 2928/2023 Page 1 of 8

Vide the impugned award, respondent no. 1/ Smt . Munni Devi
was held entitled to reinstatement in service on the post she was
occupying at the time of termination, along with full back wages w.e.f.
16.01.2019, i.e. the date of termination, till the date of the impugned
award, andconsequential benefits.
2. Notably, respondent no. 1 was originally engaged by the
erstwhile East Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter “EDMC”),
which, upon the reunification of the three municipal corporations of
Delhi with effect from 22.05.2022, stands merged into MCD.
3. Respondent no. 1 claimedthat she had been engaged as an
“ Aaya ” in an English medium nursery school at C-Block, Krishna
Nagar , Delhi(hereinafter the “School”) with effect from 12.08.2014
and was drawing monthly wages @Rs.10,000/-. According to her,
despite having completed the requisite period of continuous service,
her services were terminated illegally on 16.01.2019, without notice or
compliance with the statutory requirements. She accordingly raised an
industrial dispute seeking reinstatement, continuity of service, back
wages, and other consequential benefits.
4. The dispute was referred for adjudication under Sections
10(1)(c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference
required the Labour Court to determine whether an employer-
employee relationship existed between EDMC and respondent no. 1,
whether the termination of her services was illegal or unjustified and,
if so, the relief to which she was entitled. The reference was as follows
:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:18:25
W.P.(C) 2928/2023 Page 2 of 8

“ Whether there existed an employer employee relationship between
the management No.1 & 2 and Smt. Munni Devi W/o Sh. Mukesh
Kumar and if so, whether services of said Smt. Munni Devi have
been terminated illegally and or unjustifiably by the management;
and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief alongwith other
consequential benefits in terms of existing Laws/Govt. Notification
and to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are
necessary in this respect? ”

5. The Labour Court, vide order dated 10.09.2021, framed the
following issues for adjudication:
“ (i) (1) Whether the workman is entitled to the relief claimed in
statement of claim? OPW.
(ii) As per the (2) In terms of reference. OPW
(iii) (3) Relief. ”

6. Upon consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the
Labour Court answered the reference in favour of respondent no.1/
Smt. Munni Devi , holding that she had established her employment
with EDMC and that EDMC had failed to justify the termination of
her services. Consequently, the Labour Court directed her
reinstatement to the post she was holding at the time of termination,
with full back wages from 16.01.2019 until the date of the award,
along with consequential benefits. It further directed EDMC to pay the
amount accrued in her favour within three months from the date of
publication of the award, failing which the amount would carry
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of accrual until final payment.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent no.
1 was engaged on a daily-wage basis for the specific purpose of
executing the work contemplated under the Memorandum of
Understanding dated 12.08.2014 executed between EDMC and
respondent no. 2, M/s. Frigorifico Allana Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:18:25
W.P.(C) 2928/2023 Page 3 of 8

“MOU”). It is contended that respondent no. 1 was not appointed
against a sanctioned post and that her engagement was not made
through the prescribed recruitment process. According to the
petitioner, the engagement was linked to specific execution of work
under the MOU and could not be treated as regular employment with
EDMC.The petitioner further submits that the salaries of Class IV
employees were paid from the funds provided by respondent no. 2,
which stopped releasing funds from September 2018 and subsequently
terminated the MOU. It is, therefore, contended that respondent no.
1’s engagement came to an end with the termination of the MOU. It is
also contended that respondent no. 1 had accepted payment of her
earned wages during the conciliation proceedings.
8. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that
that the respondents services of respondent no. 1 were terminated
illegally on 16.01.2019, without notice or compliance with Sections
25F, 25G, and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further
submitted that she had completed more than 240 days of service in the
preceding year.
9. The principal issue is whether the Labour Court erred in holding
that respondent no. 1 was an employee of EDMC, despite the MOU.
10. The MOU provided that EDMC would be exclusively
responsible for the administration, control, management, and
maintenance of the School. It further stipulated that the appointment,
management and payment of salaries of the teaching and non-teaching
staff would be the responsibility of EDMC. On the other hand,
respondent no. 2 was to assist in upgrading the School by providing
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:18:25
W.P.(C) 2928/2023 Page 4 of 8

the necessary equipment, furniture, toys, and other accessories, and
would have no control over the running or operation of the School.
11. The Supreme Court, in General Manager (OSD), Bengal
1
Nagpur Cotton Mills, Rajnandgaon v. Bharat Lal , identified two
relevant tests for determining whether a workman was directly
employed by the principal employer: whether the principal employer
paid the wages and whether it controlled and supervised the work.
These tests must be applied in light of the evidence on record.The
relevant extractfrom the aforesaid decision is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
“ 10. …Two of the well-recognised tests to find out whether the
contract labourers are the direct employees of the principal
employer are: (i) whether the principal employer pays the salary
instead of the contractor; and (ii) whether the principal employer
controls and supervises the work of the employee. In this case, the
Industrial Court answered both questions in the affirmative and
as a consequence held that the first respondent is a direct
employee of the appellant. ”
(emphasis supplied)

12. In the present case, the engagement letter dated 12.08.2014
described respondent no. 1 as a daily-wage Nursery Aaya , with a
consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs.10,000/-, payable from the
funds of the School provided by respondent no. 2, but without
describing her as an employee of respondent no. 2 or of a contractor.
MW-1/ Smt. Raj Kumari acknowledged that MCD/EDMC had issued a
cheque for Rs.28,710/- towards three months’earned wages. Further,
the office order dated 28.08.2014 authorised payment of monthly
remuneration of Rs.10,000/- to three Nursery Aayas and one Security

1
(2011) 1 SCC 635
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:18:25
W.P.(C) 2928/2023 Page 5 of 8

Guard, subject to the condition that no payment would be made during
the summer and winter breaks. These documents, read with the
termsof the MOU, which placed the administration and management
of the School staff with EDMC, support the finding that respondent
no. 1’s engagement and payment of wages were directly connected
with EDMC’s administration of the School. Accordingly, the first test
laid down in Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills ( supra ) stands satisfied.
13. The second test concerns control and supervision over the work
performed. The MOU expressly placed the administration, control,
and management of the School, including the appointment and
management of its staff, with EDMC. The responsibility for payment
of salaries and emoluments also rested with EDMC. These contractual
terms support respondent no. 1’s case that her engagement was under
the management of EDMC and was not that of an employee engaged
and supervised by respondent no. 2. The fact that respondent no. 2
subsequently discontinued its assistance and terminated the MOU vide
letter dated 29.12.2018 does not alter the nature of the employment
relationship that existed during respondent no. 1’s engagement.
14. The petitioner’s contention that respondent no. 1 was not
appointed against a sanctioned post or selected through the prescribed
recruitment process does not, by itself, negate the employer-employee
relationship established on the basis of the evidence on record. The
Labour Court found that respondent no. 1 had completed 240 days of
service in the preceding year and that EDMC had failed to establish
compliance with the applicable statutory requirements at the time of
termination. It further found that EDMC had not established that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:18:25
W.P.(C) 2928/2023 Page 6 of 8

respondent no. 1 was gainfully employed elsewhere. Likewise, the
mere acceptance of earned wages during conciliation does not
establish that respondent no. 1 had accepted the termination as lawful
or relinquished her claim for relief. These findings, considered
alongside the two tests laid down in Bengal Nagpur Cotton
Mills ( supra ), support the conclusion reached by the Labour Court.
15. The challenge to the impugned award must be examined within
the limited scope of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Courtunder
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In Syed Yakoob v.
2
K.S. Radhakrishnan , the Supreme Court held that the power of
judicial review does not permit the High Court to reappreciate
evidence merely because another view is possible. Interference is
warranted only where the findings suffer from a jurisdictional error or
a patent error of law, or are otherwise vitiated in law.
16. Having considered the terms of the MOU, the engagement
letter, the office order dated 28.08.2014, and the evidence referred to
in the impugned award, this Court finds no sufficient ground to
interfere with the findings of the Labour Court. The petitioner’s
reliance on the cessation of funding, termination of the MOU, and the
absence of a sanctioned post must be considered alongside the
evidence concerning respondent no. 1’s engagement and the statutory
requirements governing termination of her services. The grant of
reinstatement and back wages must also be examined in light of the
findings recorded by the Labour Court and the limited scope of

2
AIR 1964 SC 477
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:18:25
W.P.(C) 2928/2023 Page 7 of 8

judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India.
17. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the
impugned award dated 11.10.2022. The writ petition is dismissed and
the award is upheld.
18. It is noted that, pursuant to the order dated 13.07.2023 passed
by this Court, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.2,24,500/- with
the Registrar General, being 50% of the back wages. In view of the
dismissal of the writ petition, the amount deposited, with accrued
interest, shall be released to respondent no. 1.The petitioner shall pay
the balance amount payable under the impugned award to respondent
no.1 within a period of four weeks from today.
19. The pending applications stand disposed of in the above terms.


(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER03, 2026
na
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:18:25
W.P.(C) 2928/2023 Page 8 of 8